Watch Michael & Me For Free

To me, this movie is perfection.

Admirable film.

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Michael & Me is an independent and self-financed documentary made by Los Angeles-based radio and television talk show host Larry Elder that intends to disprove the statements made by Michael Moore in his Academy Award winning documentary entitled Bowling For Columbine about the following issues namely:American culture with respect to increased violence and gun ownership.Elder uses Moore's style of interview and tone as well as the sense of humor known in his movies particularly Roger And Me and Bowling For Columbine to relay the basic message that guns are good for Americans and the promotion of gun ownership.He interviews people who have been victims of crimes and how a gun could have been helpful to them as well as responsible gun owners in the United States.It also insinuates that Moore is an anti-American individual.Too bad that Elder completely misfires in this documentary.His sense of humor will barely elicit any laughter especially when he tries to locate Michael Moore the same way the latter tried to locate GM Chairman Roger Smith in his film,Roger And Me.The use of "The Woprah Infrey Show" as the show where both Elder and Moore will appear together was just corny.The use of people on the street who are unaware of our 2nd amendment rights or American's right to bare arms was just not helpful in promoting his message.While the appearance of reformed gang leaders and members simply does not help his pro- gun ownership message as these people were used to a life of violence and they are not the typical American that we meet on the street.The same is true with those who were victims of violence as it shows that a gun would have been the only answer for the prevention of criminals in the U.S. While the promotion was gun ownership could have its advantages,it would have been better if professionals were the ones interviewed about its advantages such as historians,psychologists,psychiatrists and the likes.Also,the use of facts would have also helped a lot to present its advantages rather than interviewing individuals with an axe to grind.In the end,it just became an ad for the NRA rather than discussing the issue intelligently and a propaganda against Michael Moore.

Filmmaker Michael Elder is opposed to Michael Moore's message in 'Bowling for Columbine' (i.e. there are too many guns in America). but he borrows many of Moore's techniques to tell his story: find enough people who support your thesis, play it to the hilt, and presto! you have a film. Elder uses examples of unarmed people who have been violated by gun-toters, and shows us they could have extricated themselves safely if they had been armed. This may or may not be true, but from that general premise, Elder jumps to a specific conclusion: because you never know when a bad person is going to come into your life with a gun, every red-blooded American man and woman should be armed and therefore dangerous. That's how you fight crime in America. As a Canadian, where rigid gun controls are supported by most, I kept asking the same question that many millions of people in this and other countries always ask: why do Americans find it so necessary to arm themselves with enough weaponry to launch a third world war? What causes this 'siege' mentality? Why does the National Rifle Association remain one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, one that routinely pays off politicians to ensure that America remains a gun-loving country? There are many 'whys' that come out of this film, but there aren't many answers. Root causes of crime and criminality are only superficially explored; finding out why America is such a violent country in the first place isn't on Elder's agenda. He's more occupied with 'liberty,' 'freedom,' and all things directly connected to one's constitutional right to bear arms -- everywhere, at all times, if I understand Elder correctly. This is a disturbing movie. Gun-loving Americans would probably not understand why someone would say that.

Okay, okay. Before you dismiss me as some gun-toting right-wing zealot for my 8/10 rating, hear me out. I don't own a gun. I've never fired a gun. I don't even think I've actually held a real gun. For years gun control and strict licensing sounded pretty reasonable to me. What do guns do other than kill people?I had gradually softened on that viewpoint, but it wasn't until I watched MICHAEL & ME that I completely understood true spirit of the pro-gun argument. I was literally enthralled by Larry Elder's line of reasoning and the stories from everyday Americans he shared. He hammers home the point that as much as we might wish the need for guns as self defense didn't exist, it does. Just ask the rape victim Elder interviewed.Because of its title (referring to Michael Moore) and its pre-2004 election release date, MICHAEL & ME has basically be lumped together with a host of anti-Moore films designed to counter FAHRENHEIT 9/11. But Elder's work isn't really about Moore. Moore, whose views on the subject are shared by millions, is merely used as the embodiment of anti-gun arguments that Elder seeks to answer. Not everyone will agree with those answers, but it never hurt anyone to learn both sides of the story.

This movie uses the Michael Moore name to try and sell a totally slanted propaganda piece that offers little insight to anyone who has not already staked-out a position on the gun control issue. The obvious counter arguments to most of the points made will leave anyone logical and sensible, a very frustrated viewer. A simple example: Should people be allowed to have and use nuclear weapons? If no, then you agree with weapons limitations. Should the average person be allowed to own and use 50 caliber sniper rifles that can shoot through cars? If no, then you believe in gun control. Now, let's discuss sensible gun control rules we can all live with. Spare me that nonsense that few rules are needed. If you think that way, you are simply a moron.Anyone can use extreme examples to make any point. One lady gets raped on day 2 of her 10 day waiting period. Of course they fail to mention the many hot-heads who are deterred from using guns in anger BECAUSE of that same waiting period. As I say, the counter arguments, which this film avoids, are glaringly missing. In this film, everyone who loves guns shoots straight, is always sober, and has keen judgment. Anyone who wants any sort of gun control is portrayed as an idiot. Don't waste your time with this one. There is nothing there.